Qantas Introducing No Jab - No Fly Policy

SlavOz on 24/11/2020 - 19:17
Last edited 24/11/2020 - 19:51 by 1 other user

Is there a legal precedent to this? How is a major airline allowed to take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

This is truly absurd.

Qantas will ban travellers who don't have the COVID vaccine — can other businesses follow suit?

Travel

Related Stores

Qantas
Qantas

Comments

      • ddrex on 25/11/2020 - 19:36
        +3

        I wonder how outraged people would get if quantas made it a condition of flying that every passenger must prove they are healthy. In other words, have proof of having adequate levels of Vit C and D, must prove they are well hydrated and have had at least 2ltrs of water on that day, must be able to do 20 push ups and 10 chin ups and must prove they have walked at least 5km prior to entering the airport.
        That would be some show haha

      • Ughhh on 25/11/2020 - 20:26

        confront the reality that I will die one day and the government can't keep me safe forever? That's so unfair!

        True, you and everyone will die one day, so why bother catching serial killers, why have Safe work laws and regulations.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 20:36
          -1

          Because those things are reasonably uninvasive and without them, many people who would otherwise live a long life would perish.

          That's not really the same thing as ushering in a new world dystopian future just so sub 83-year olds can live a few more years at best.

          • Ughhh on 25/11/2020 - 20:49

            @SlavOz: Yes, we need serial killers to keep the population down. Serial killers are very reasonably uninvasive in peoples life. Does your name start with H by any chance?

            • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 07:43
              +1

              @Ughhh: Oh my, he stated that catching serial killed was noninvasive, not the killers. Nice reading comprehension.

              Also, nice use of *everyone who doesn't agree with me is literally Hitler".

              • Ughhh on 26/11/2020 - 16:15

                @brendanm: Considering the initial comment and quote, it doesnt even make sense.

                Also, nice use of *everyone who doesn't agree with me is literally Hitler".

                Nice assumptions by the way. You said it, no one else did.

                • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 16:23

                  @Ughhh:

                  Nice assumptions by the way. You said it, no one else did.

                  It's the default go to, and I'm fairly sure it's actually been mentioned in this thread. So not a long bow to draw.

      • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 21:41

        I think I saw you in a Bunnings yelling at the young kid who asked you to wear a mask. Something along the lines of ‘my personal freedoms’ , ‘the constitution’, ‘sovereign citizen’, ‘your policies have no power over me’

  • Kapinny on 25/11/2020 - 19:09
    +2

    Relax Pete Evans

  • berrycrush on 25/11/2020 - 19:23

    I bet this is the most popular you've felt in years

  • Herbse on 25/11/2020 - 19:34

    They already don't allow terrorists and people who are a flight risk onto their planes for the safety of the other passengers. No difference here.

    • Nebargains on 26/11/2020 - 06:00

      I think the difference is that border control would be making those decisions, not the individual airline. I don't necessarily have a problem with what QANTAS is doing, I don't agree with it, but like terrorists and the like from your example, shouldn't it be controlled by the government and border forces and not individual airlines? Otherwise each airline may have a different policy, different protocols etc.

  • Brianqpr on 25/11/2020 - 20:42

    How is it absurd?

    Surely they have some say on who gets on their planes? They are a publicly listed company and can do business with whoever they want or don't want to. You don't have a divine right to get on board a flight. Maybe another airline will take those who refuse to be vaccinated, but why should they put their staff at risk?

  • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2020 - 21:23
    +3

    OP comes across as selfish and entitled.

    OP seems to think his rights are above society and he has rights on private business decisions as well.

    As others have pointed there are plenty of countries which require yellow fever jab. Also there maybe a list of other things requested to enter any country including quarantine theses days. Are you going to shout "hey I have rights to freedom of movement and therefore I will not do quarantine?!"

    Also, if you want to claim your right of freedom of movement, does not say you have the right to fly.

    • cheec on 26/11/2020 - 02:31
      +3

      Ah yes, time to denigrate others who do not agree.
      They are all selfish, 'deplorable', low-life, despicable.
      We know best. We are the good people. Everyone else is bad.

  • zilver on 25/11/2020 - 21:35

    You could drive.

  • burns13 on 25/11/2020 - 21:36
    +7

    Public Safety trumps certain rights "against discrimination". Surely you have got with the program after the catastrophic global event of the past 12 months. Nobody is forcing you to take a vaccine but you will be finding it lonely and isolated when your services and options are few. Your choice entirely though.

    • DoctorCalculon on 25/11/2020 - 21:54
      +2

      Not sure why you got negged for speaking the truth.
      Fixed it for you. 💯

  • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 21:46
    +7

    Have we really bred an entire generation of adult brats who have been taught that the world is an injustice if they don't get exactly what they want, when they want it?

    Remember this from your centrelink welfare post. I guess you answered your own question with this topic.

  • DoctorCalculon on 25/11/2020 - 21:52

    Do you think Qantas is going to be the only major airline? I guarantee you almost all airlines across the world will have this policy for international travel to resume.

    Is there a legal precedent to this?

    You must be delusional to think you need a legal precedent when this is just common sense.
    We don't want non-inoculated foreign visitors coming into this country starting a third or x'th wave, and likewise other countries do not want the same.

    To the anti-vaxxers, they can GTFO!

  • MessyG on 25/11/2020 - 22:19

    I don't think it's right to compare to a rule where someone has already had something happen (i.e. an abortion) to something that people need to do because this is about liability. How liable are Qantas if someone catches COVID on one of their aeroplanes, particularly an employee? They are a private business, they can set rules to protect their staff and their passengers. People are free to choose another airline.

  • Raif on 25/11/2020 - 22:44

    The only fear around any of these vaccines should be that it won't work or you'll have an allergic reaction.

    None of the proposed vaccines alter human cells. They instead supply the body with instructions to build immunity to COVID. They may have other ingredients that have been tested in other vaccines w/o risk to improve stability.

    Here is a list of vaccine concerns:
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.…
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

    Suffice to say risks are very low, much lower than in most medications. If you cease taking a vaccine because of risks, you should really not take any medication as the risks are more significant.

    • khell on 26/11/2020 - 00:15

      Imagine anti-vaxxers believing in science.

      • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:08
        -1

        Yeah…imagine how dumb you need to be to expect a vaccine to have long term human trials before it's declared safe for long term use.

        If only we followed science which has always told us to simply trust in what PR and government agencies say and never question anything.

        • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 17:44

          Science has never told anyone to blindly believe PR and government agencies. PR and government agencies have told everyone to blindly believe whatever they can make the most money from in the moment. Science reports on what it finds. Sometimes that changes and sometimes it doesn't. It's messy and imperfect and requires consensus from multiple different non-affiliated sources for it to become fact. Getting scientists to agree is worse than herding cats so when they do largely agree (notwithstanding the professional misanthropes and those who make money from perpetually disagreeing), it's important to listen.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 11:03
        -1

        Whenever someone tries to glibly verbal the word 'science', I ask them a science question! I want to make doubly sure that your belief in science is underpinned by an actual understanding. Too many people cheaply verbal the word science only to skulk away when asked a scientific question.

        Your scientific question is: What is the surface area of a unit quaternion Julia fractal?

  • icomeforthecomments on 25/11/2020 - 23:02

    OMG Qantas, possibly Alan Joyce himself, will come barging into our homes and jab us with the COVID vaccine against our will. Why aren't people marching in the streets!!!

    By the way, good luck getting permission to enter your country of choice when you do arrive on your rowboat.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2020 - 23:11
    +2

    I acknowledge the great benefits of vaccines, however due to it being largely untested by time, what if a small percentage of the population has a health problem …and what if it's me? I don't want to be that small percentage. That's all. I need some assurance from renowned scientists before I volunteer.

    • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 23:15
      -2

      No one said it was mandatory

    • Nebargains on 26/11/2020 - 06:09

      That's how I feel. I'm vaccinated for lots of things, no issues with vaccine whatsoever. But Covid19 didn't exist 12 months ago and vaccines have been in the works for 9 months or so, this does make me question the overall safety and effectiveness of it when most vaccines take 8-10 years to produce and have been around for decades, all vaccines are new at one point though.

    • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 07:45

      Exactly this. We know the effects of covid on the majority of the population. We don't know the effects, however unlikely, of the rushed vaccine.

    • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:45
      +1

      I think that largely reflects how everyones feeling about this. As a HCW I'm just going to have to suck it up and get it to protect my family and my patients and knowing how vaccines work I'm not that concerned but I'd be lying if I didn't feel a bit apprehensive. But the flipside is having watched a lot of my patients die of COVID - I'd rather risk the vaccine. It's most likely that is dangerous side effect rate is going to be less than the risk of getting dangerous COVID complications (which even if you survive, come with long term disability regardless). It's a huge ask of the community to take this on though. Hopefully if enough frontliners do, and it all turns out okay, others will follow.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 09:40

        I understand and feel more assured now that the side effects of vaccines show up in the first few days or maybe weeks after vaccination, it is extremely rare (a way of saying anything is possible) for them to show side effects after years.

  • khell on 26/11/2020 - 00:14
    +3

    I hope Qantas make it mandatory for domestic travel as well. On the contrary any airline that doesn't make the vaccine mandatory to fly with them will not be getting my money.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:22

      Totally dude. And I hate to sound selfish - but I'd like 3 vaccines please. And a microchip thrown in too.

      Anyone who doesn't give up their individuality and privacy to mega corporations working with the government is just so silly. Why can't they just think for themselves.

      • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 11:00

        Muuuurrriiiicaaaa

        Do ya ReSeaRcH Sheeple!!!

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 11:12
          -3

          Synonomizing the concept of individual rights and liberties to just some cultural trope of a single country shows how truly disconnected you are from the real world.

          While you live here in your privileged bubble, keep in mind that most of the world's population does not enjoy even the most basic human rights. I would assume that somebody pretending to be as compassionate as you would recognise the injustice of this, and the importance of the developed world in helping these countries reform.

          Meanwhile, instead of spreading the concept of freedom to the rest of the world, you're cheerleading while that very concept is abolished or mocked from the rest of us.

          I guess you're one of the few people who can legitimately claim to be for equality - you want the whole world to be equally oppressed because you're truly terrified of individualism and the risk it poses to your echo chamber.

          • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 11:30
            +1

            @SlavOz: Remember this?:

            Have we really bred an entire generation of adult brats who have been taught that the world is an injustice if they don't get exactly what they want, when they want it?

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:20
              -1

              @Vote for Pedro: I do. That was about people complaining about their free money not being free enough.

              Kind of irrelevant when you're talking about creating 2nd class citizens out of people. Just a small difference between the two.

              • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 13:09
                +1

                @SlavOz: Seems like you are crying about a personal injustice because you are unable to force a private company to do what you want.

                Same same except different because it’s about you this time.

                • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 13:13
                  -1

                  @Vote for Pedro: No, it's different because one group of people are already being done a generous favour by being given free money.

                  In this instance, I'm not complaining about my free demands not being free enough. I'm complaining about a law which could very well set a precedent for every company to discriminate against people for having different ideological beliefs or medical concerns to them.

                  Not sure how you conflate the two. Perhaps you'd have a point if I was complaining that QANTAS only gives me 1 free flight a month, and its not even in first class pfftt how unfair!

                  • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 13:25
                    +2

                    @SlavOz: nO It’S DiFfERenT CuZ itZ aBoUt m3.

                    It’s optional. You are not entitled to fly with Qantas

                    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 13:27
                      -2

                      @Vote for Pedro: No, it's different because one is about demanding free money and the other is about requesting that a business takes my money instead of discriminating against me and setting a precedent which could potentially stop international citizens from going back to their home country.

                      Your point failed. Get over it.

                      • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 14:25

                        @SlavOz: dA bUsINess wOnT tAke Ma MoNeY. My LiB3rTy!?$&&

                        Guess what, they don’t have to.

  • jv on 26/11/2020 - 00:42
    +4

    Is there a legal precedent to this?

    Yep, have had to have vaccinations numerous times travelling to different places over the years…

    You shouldn't be scared of a little prick….

    • bman20 on 27/11/2020 - 15:24

      the little prick is what leads men to unhinged rants such as this

      • jv on 27/11/2020 - 15:36

        The ranters are the anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers…

        You should have seen the ranting one parent made when our kinder refused to enrol their kid who had not been vaccinated…

  • jv on 26/11/2020 - 00:44
    +3

    take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

    It's an OH&S issue to protect their staff…

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:20
      -3

      Protect them from what? A deadly virus that you need to be tested just to know you have, which almost exclusively kills elderly and already sick people?

      Mate your average 20-something flight attendant isn't going to die from COVID. They probably wouldn't even know they had it. Stop being hysterical.

      • jv on 26/11/2020 - 09:57
        +4

        Protect them from what?

        Ask them if you want to know…

        It's their call what policies they want to apply for health and safety of their staff, not yours…

      • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:47

        No but the 55 year old flight attendant with diabetes and hypertension will need protecting. Or the 65 year old pilot. Or any elderly person on the plane.

        Telling people they're hysterical wont change their mind.

  • dmaca667 on 26/11/2020 - 01:38
    +7

    Pretty sure SlavOZ is just on a fishing trip and getting plenty of bites - People may comment more on the first amendment (of America), but seem to forget the first rule of the internet.
    DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
    I also do not think the term "Anti-Vaxxer" is really a fair term. "Anti" tends to have a lot of negative commotations and i think the term "Pro-Disease" is more accurate.

    • burns13 on 26/11/2020 - 02:18
      +1

      'pro disease'. Well said

    • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 13:56

      What's a 'commotation'?

      • dmaca667 on 27/11/2020 - 18:01

        A mispelled attempt at "connotation".

  • cheec on 26/11/2020 - 02:27
    +1

    Good to see so many people (masses of people) having:
    i) lively, thoughtful, intelligent debate
    ii) with majority of people are sensible, intelligent and willing to take the vaccine for the common good.

    Please keep it up, please take the vaccine and do your part to be a good citizen.

    (Inner thought: Now back to my plans for subjugating the 'masses', so easy, BU HA HA HA HA HA……)

  • bobbieb on 26/11/2020 - 06:42
    -1

    I love the threads that these topics have triggered over the past year of COVID…

    It seems the media is over it, as they don't seem to be giving it anywhere near the airtime that they did the previous incarnations.

    Back at the beginning when Bunnings started insisting on mask wearing, the topic was done to death…

    The official position from pretty much every legal and regulatory direction was that organizations can set pretty much any terms they wish to protect the health and safety of their staff and customers, insofar as it doesn't run afoul of the narrow bounds of the anti-discrimination act.

    And no… as the existing no-jab, no-play policies show - vaccinations aren't covered by the anti-discrimination act.

    And doubly, no… you don't have a "human right" to board an international flight. LOL. This isn't 'merica… our courts don't put up with those sort of litigious, frivolous filings, but by all means, try, if just for our entertainment.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:01

      So if Woolworths and Coles stopped serving a significant part of the population and the government supported it, denying people the ability to buy food, you don't see how that potentially breaches at least one human right?

      Right to liberty and security? Freedom from inhumane or degrading treatment?

      "Nah you're only starving to death, get over it mate cuz muh bigotry and irrational fear of the flu trumps your human rightszzzzz"

      Haha thanks for the morning chuckle

      • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 11:32

        You're absolutely spot-on. Your right to fly to Thailand to swill beer and drool on young girls is up there with your right to oxygen and water.

        Stop creating absurd hypotheticals and focus on the facts before us. Qantas, as a private busines, has a right to banish anti-vax lunatics. I, as one of their customers, have a right to travel without catching your diseases

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 13:21

          Umm no, not everyone flies to hook up with drunk locals or live it up on a tropical beach.

          Some of us have family overseas, some of us are citizens from another country, and others have to fly for work. Now I will grant you that working or seeing family isn't a direct human right, but being allowed to travel to your home country is a widely accepted right in international law (as is the requirement of countries to take in any refugees who land on their shores within reason, let alone a local citizen).

          So no, I don't think QANTAS can set a precedent that every airline could follow by stopping people from going home. What if their VISA expires and they need to be deporteed back? Just ship them on a box out to sea? Nope sorry - that would almost definitely count as cruel and degrading treatment.

          • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 15:48
            -1

            @SlavOz: Again - you with those hysterical hypotheticals.

            Anti-vax ferals have no right to endanger my life, my children's lives, or the lives of airline employees because of a selfish, irrational decision they have decided to make.

            It is their right to make such decisions. It is also their responsibility to accept the consequences. My hope is that other businesses, as well as government departments, follow Qantas's lead.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:56

              @john71:

              Again - you with those hysterical hypotheticals.

              How is it a hypothetical? People get deported all the time or have other personal reasons why they may need to travel (religious expression, medical treatment etc). This literally happens every single day. It's not some rare what-if. So how do you expect these people to get on?

              Religious expression is a human right - if you're stopping people from flying (for example to visit Mecca every year), you're getting in the way of that.

              Organising a safe passage back to your home country is a human right. You can't keep people away from their families or national duties forever, especially if they're not entitled to welfare or other benefits here.

              Who fill fight you wars to keep you safe if those in the military choose not to get vaccinated?

              Doesn't sound like you've thought this through much.

      • bobbieb on 26/11/2020 - 13:44
        +2

        You don't seem to be getting it… insofar as it's not contrary to the anti-discrimination laws, Qantas can apply any conditions of carriage that they wish.

        Much of this has already been tested over the past year… the requirement for employers to provide a safe working environment for their employees and customers trumps pretty much everything else.

  • Okayy on 26/11/2020 - 06:45
    +2

    Good on you Qantas! For just keeping those idiots off our skies.

  • sheebies on 26/11/2020 - 07:43
    +4

    By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

    You mean like how insurance companies can deny people life insurance based on their smoking status? Or if they've had any serious illness? What about telcos that can deny service if you have a bad credit rating?

    I'm not really seeing your point here? They have a right to ensure the safety of their customers and staff. Your actions have consequences, don't want to get vaccinated? Cool.. don't fly with Qantas.

  • Hoolio on 26/11/2020 - 08:05
    +2

    Insurance companies already make plenty of exclusions based on medical history.

  • newjerseydamo on 26/11/2020 - 08:59
    +3

    Not sure I see the link between abortion and power plans, but OK.
    As others have mentioned, insurance companies have exclusions all the time.
    So your analogies are baseless.

    I'm more than happy to take a vaccination to enable me to travel; in fact, they're already required for other diseases when visiting certain countries.

    You do you. Those of us more inclined for public health and safety will do us.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:04

      You do you.

      Dint think you understand how to use this phrase.

      It essentially means to live and let live. It doesn't really apply when you're suggesting we create 2nd class citizens out of unvaccinated people and force them into submission.

      • dhnqt on 26/11/2020 - 09:36
        +2

        https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/international-travel…

        The government is likely on board with Qantas, so it's purely your choice now, vaccination or paying for 2 weeks of quarantine before flying.

      • newjerseydamo on 26/11/2020 - 09:38
        +3

        I understand it completely. It's not creating 2nd class citizens. In no way is it reducing their wellbeing or livelihood.
        It's your choice what you do; take the vaccine and travel, or don't take the vaccine.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 10:37

          And what about when the next business adopts the same policy? How long until the unvaccinated can't enter grocery stores, receive welfare, go to work, or have children at the hospital?

          "They're not 2nd class citizens" is damn right…it's more like pariah cockroaches.

          • newjerseydamo on 26/11/2020 - 11:07
            +5

            @SlavOz: It's a -pandemic-.

            Public health and safety is paramount.

            If you're going to be selfish and wear a tinfoil hat, then be my guest. I just don't want you anywhere near society where you can cause/spread infection.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 11:19

              @newjerseydamo:

              Public health and safety is paramount.

              Says the guy who wants to deny anti-vaxxers hospital treatment or welfare because they're too unclean.

              I just don't want you anywhere near society where you can cause/spread infection.

              Globally, the risk of catching COVID is like 0.8%. In the odd chance that you do catch it, your chances of dying are about 2.7%. If you're under 60, your odds go down even further. If you're under 30, your risk of dying from COVID is virtually non-existent - you have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident.

              So what are you doing to deter all the young people in society from dying in car accidents, since you seem to care about public health and safety so much? Do you support locking up anyone caught speeding?

              • gimme on 26/11/2020 - 11:28
                +4

                @SlavOz: Oversimplification!

                If the world decided to let it run rampant and whoever dies dies (mostly elderly), then your argument may hold (some) truth. However if we're not doing that, not containing the pandemic through vaccination will have a massive economic impact. Also at this stage I don't think anyone can say with any certainty what the longer term effects (even if you recover) may be. Every option has an element of risk.

          • CrowReally on 26/11/2020 - 11:15
            +1

            @SlavOz: You think that's bad, what if they start banning slippery slopes? No more summer slip 'n' slide on the lawn for us, and no more internet arguments from you

          • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 12:42
            +3

            @SlavOz: Hate to break it to you, but your unvaccinated kids already can't go to daycare, your unvaccinated dog can't go to a boarding kennel, and you can't work in an abattoir without a Q fever shot. Where was the outrage then? I don't remember you protesting for your anti-vaxxer rights to work in a slaughterhouse. But international flights? 'Woe is me! Second class citizen! Waaah!'

            • stringbean402 on 26/11/2020 - 17:38

              @SydStrand: I hate dirty anit-vaxx children… bunch of little grubs who will amount to nothing just like their parents.

      • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 11:41
        +2

        No, WE are not creating 'second-class' citizens. The anti-vax morons have decided to do it to themselves.

        There are consequences to being silly and selfish. Hopefully, in the case of covid vaccinations, not being able to fly, get a passport or be eligible for Medicare will be among them.

  • OldSchoolHarry on 26/11/2020 - 09:15
    +4

    What's absurd is the example OP gave. Smh.

  • cheec on 26/11/2020 - 09:30
    +2

    There is a bigger picture and it is not about human rights.
    In a civil world, nations come together to recognize a set of so-called basic human rights. These rights are implemented by peace-loving, freedom-loving nations over the last 50 years, so their citizens enjoy those basic rights.
    Look at history (and even today), there are times when nations do not recognize such right, and mainly the citizens have no choice but to obey.
    Google images and see the following free and modern societies:
    - Cuba in the 50s, Lebanon in the 60s, Iran in the 70s, Syria in the 00s, Shanghai(China) in the 30s - and see the freedom enjoyed by people dancing, partying, cars, yatchs, etc
    Decades later, people living in super-oppressed conditions, not only from war but from the law imposed by their regime.

    Point being, those countries and people are in terrible shape now compared to before. How can it happen to those intelligent, modern, freedom-loving people? Literally think about where have their human rights gone?

    Fast forward to 2020, big bad pandemic, let's protect the people. Therefore do what you are told:
    - wear mask,
    - get injection
    - don't visit loved ones
    - cannot go past X km from your home
    - Penalty of fine or jail, for now……
    ……….. All these are very good suggestion to reduce the pandemic…….

    But Wait, this is actually the LAW in Victoria for many months. Citizens do not have a right to go against this.
    This is just the beginning……… hopefully people can understand how those freedom-loving, prosperous countries mentioned above became a source of refugees or worse.

    • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 11:44
      +2

      Gosh. I wish I was unemployed. It must be awesome having all this free time to create long, boring, senseless posts.

      • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:11
        -2

        Once you start thinking for yourself instead of outsourcing it to the media, you'll learn that it's actually not that time-consuming.

        This post probably took about 10 minutes to write - the same amount of time it takes you to connect your brain to the TV and absorb everything it says.

        • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 12:47
          +3

          As opposed to you, where everything comes pre-filtered from the dregs of every right wing, conspiracy group on Facebook with a serving of Pete Evans and a dash of Ben Shapiro.

        • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:48

          Yes because calling people sheep realllly gets them on board with your course, has worked so well for years hasn't it…

  • Spamazon on 26/11/2020 - 09:43
    -1

    Baa! go the sheep

  • CheeryCheapskate on 26/11/2020 - 10:33
    +3

    It's probably similar to the mask laws seen in Victoria; a few tried to make a case against it but the courts ruled it out in favour of health reasons. I'm betting the same will occur with flights; more will try to create a case but it's going to get messy when it comes to international laws involved. Personally I'm in favour of the jab rule.

  • isthatallyougot on 26/11/2020 - 10:50
    +2

    Replace Covid with Ebola , would you take the vaccine as soon as it became available ?

  • oO0Dam0Oo on 26/11/2020 - 10:57
    +1

    As part of their COVID safe plan the are obligated to assess and mitigate all risks. As part of their risk assessment they would have deemed vaccination to be a reasonable control. This would not only satisfy the requirements of being a COVID safe business but also their obligations under the workplace health and safety legislation with consideration to workers safety.

  • Blue Cat on 26/11/2020 - 11:14

    How about just testing the passanger before boarding the plane????

    Didn’t they advertise they have “instant tests” ready and are ready to shove all my hard earned tax dollars into it?

    • samfisher5986 on 26/11/2020 - 11:20

      Pretty sure those only tell you if you are currently infected but perhaps not showing symptoms, but won't tell you if you caught it from someone which means you'll be infectious in 3-14 days.

    • ozbargainer88 on 26/11/2020 - 11:55
      +1

      If this was viable and trustworthy, why would we have hotel quarantine for every traveler? It obviously isn't reliable enough.

  • pformag on 26/11/2020 - 11:16

    Well, will wait as long as possible before getting the jab. I think of it as the same as early tech adopters. The 1st round, there are always issues with the new tech, will wait for round 2 or 3.

  • 91rs on 26/11/2020 - 11:19

    Insurance is all about taking peoples money and then finding ways not to pay out.
    Look at all the travel insurance that was cancelled or would not be valid if a person caught COVID in the early days after it was declared a pandemic.
    Look at how all insurance companies charge for their policies based off where you live, age, previous illness or current medical conditions, even family medical history plays in to how much you will have to pay.
    Many insurance companies already refuse to insure people over things often out of their control.

    Why the tears over a common sense decision? If you're not able to take the vaccine and are going to these places where there are insane levels of infection then do you think they'd escape OK? What about all those who will be coming back in to Australia possibly carrying the virus risking another spread here?

    Pre-COVID I would fly what many would see as excessively, if it meant I could go back to that or a version of so I could do my job and keep paying my bills with a vaccine, I might wait it out a couple months first to see the known reactions but then would be on board (after assessing risk).

    Your example is the only thing that's absurd about this.

  • ozbargainer88 on 26/11/2020 - 11:53
    +4

    Needing a prick means less pricks overseas. This is a good thing. I'm not scared of a vaccine and will get it asap so I can travel again.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:05
      -2

      I'm not scared of a vaccine

      But you're petrified of a flu that is so deadly, you need a test just to know if you have it.

      Bravery comes in different forms apparently.

      • ozbargainer88 on 26/11/2020 - 12:07
        +1

        Educate yourself on the long-term effects of COVID.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:16
          -1

          Educate yourself on the long-term effects of COVID.

          Educate yourself on the long term effects of a COVID vaccine.

          Oh sorry I forgot - you can't, because they haven't bothered testing it.

      • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 12:58
        +3

        There is such a thing as an asymptomatic shredder, despite normal clinical signs and even negative on-the-spot testing. It's how half the Trump Administration got infected at the White House Rose Garden, and seemingly gave it to the other half.

        And vaccines don't exist just to protect you, you ghoul. Even if you don't show signs, you owe it to the community to practise covid safety, to protect the vulnerable, the elderly you apparently don't care about, and immunocompromised.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 13:03
          -3

          So I have to get a vaccine to keep other people healthy?

          Here's an idea - what if the vaccine just kept the recipient healthy, regardless of whether Joe from down the road got jabbed or not?

          And what if those who were afraid of the flu simply got vaccinated to minimise their own risk of catching it, while letting the rest of us do what we want?

          • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 13:20
            +5

            @SlavOz:

            So I have to get a vaccine to keep other people healthy?

            You, others, your family. You know, people other than yourself? Believe it or not, they can get sick too.

            Here's an idea - what if the vaccine just kept the recipient healthy, regardless of whether Joe from down the road got jabbed or not?

            Because that's not how it works. Herd immunity is the basis for every successful vaccination programme because it eventually protects everyone, even those who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, like the immune compromised. It's how we eradicated smallpox; but it requires large-scale uptake in vaccination to minimise transmission through vulnerable pockets.

            And what if those who were afraid of the flu simply got vaccinated to minimise their own risk of catching it, while letting the rest of us do what we want?

            I appreciate how you're not even trying to pretend to care about anyone else, even when mass uptake of vaccination is also in your self-interest.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join